Ask the community...
- DO post questions about your issues.
- DO answer questions and support each other.
- DO post tips & tricks to help folks.
- DO NOT post call problems here - there is a support tab at the top for that :)
Join the conversation
Join the conversation
Amara Okafor
For what it's worth, I think you're smart to be questioning this now rather than discovering it during an audit or worse. The fact that Delaware shows both entities as separate and active is definitely concerning. I'd lean toward filing an amendment to add the correct entity name as soon as you confirm which one actually owns the pledged stock.
That's probably the safest approach. File the amendment to add the correct name while keeping the original filing in place for continuity.
Agreed. Amendment is much cheaper than potentially losing perfection entirely. Plus it creates a clear paper trail showing you identified and corrected the issue.
Just wanted to add that I tried that Certana.ai tool someone mentioned after having my own document consistency headaches with a different pledge of stock deal. It's actually pretty slick - caught several name variations I hadn't noticed between my loan agreement and UCC filing. Definitely worth trying for complex collateral situations like this.
I'm definitely going to check that out. At this point I need all the help I can get making sure our documents are consistent.
The nice thing is it gives you a clear report showing exactly where the inconsistencies are, so you know exactly what needs to be fixed rather than guessing.
Join the conversation
Harold Oh
I deal with UCC filings daily and see this all the time. The most common cause is that lenders file amendments to increase the secured amount to cover fees, interest, or additional advances without always notifying the borrower immediately. Pull a complete search by filing number - that will show you everything.
Thanks for the advice. I'm going to pull the complete filing history first thing tomorrow morning. Really hoping it's just an amendment I missed and not something more complicated.
Harold Oh
•Nine times out of ten it's just an amendment. UCC-3 forms are used for all kinds of modifications and sometimes they get filed as part of standard loan documentation without being highlighted to the borrower.
Amun-Ra Azra
Has anyone tried using document verification tools for this kind of problem? I've heard there are services that can automatically compare UCC filings but haven't tried any myself. Might be worth looking into if you're dealing with complex financing arrangements.
Amun-Ra Azra
•Good to know there are tools available. Manual document comparison is such a pain, especially when you're dealing with multiple amendments and continuations.
Summer Green
•I usually just call the filing office but these automated tools sound much more efficient.
Join the conversation
Sean Kelly
honestly just go back to manual searches until these APIs get better. not worth the headache imo
Zara Mirza
•Manual isn't scalable for everyone though. Some businesses need the automation even if it's imperfect.
Sean Kelly
•yeah i get that. just saying from my experience the APIs cause more problems than they solve right now
Luca Russo
Update: Finally got our API integration working more reliably by implementing extensive name preprocessing before sending queries. We normalize all entity suffixes, remove extra spaces, and convert to uppercase before API calls. Still not perfect but rejection rate dropped from 40% to under 10%.
Luca Russo
•Sure, I can put together a quick reference guide. The key is having a comprehensive mapping table for all the common entity suffix variations.
This preprocessing approach makes sense. Most of the API failures are probably just formatting issues rather than actual search problems.
Join the conversation
Eli Wang
UPDATE: I found the problem! It was exactly what someone mentioned about the LLC suffix. They had it registered as 'L.L.C.' with periods but I was using 'LLC' without periods. Once I changed that, the filing went through immediately. Thanks everyone for the help!
Great outcome! Now you know for future filings to always check the exact formatting in the state database.
Perfect example of why the exact legal name verification is so critical for UCC filings. One wrong character and your security interest isn't properly perfected.
This thread is super helpful. I'm bookmarking it because I know I'll run into this exact issue eventually. The LLC suffix thing especially - never would have thought about periods vs no periods making a difference.
Ethan Scott
•Same here. Really good reminder to always go to the source database rather than relying on other documents.
Lola Perez
•The document verification tool mentioned earlier sounds useful too. Might save time on complex filings with multiple parties.
GalacticGladiator
Just a thought but have you looked at similar filings in your state to see how others handle mixed manufacturing collateral? Sometimes the SOS website has examples or you can search recent filings for guidance on collateral language that gets accepted.
0 coins
Zainab Abdulrahman
•Good idea - I should check what language other filers are using successfully. Might give me some templates to work from.
0 coins
GalacticGladiator
•Yeah, and if you see consistent patterns in what gets accepted vs rejected, it can help you craft language that aligns with what the SOS wants to see.
0 coins
QuantumQuasar
Update us when you get it figured out! I'm dealing with a similar mixed-collateral situation and would love to know what language finally works for the filing.
0 coins
Zainab Abdulrahman
•Will do! Planning to refile early next week with more specific collateral descriptions based on all this feedback.
0 coins
Amina Diop
•Definitely post an update. These collateral classification issues are so common, your solution could help a lot of people.
0 coins